About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10
serve and the defense policy board of the pentagon as co-chairman of the president's intelligence advisory board, not to mention all the things that have been said about his service in vietnam and his heroism as an enlisted man. so i think -- i understand that people disagree with his position on certain issues and therefore everybody has the right to vote in the way it they say, but the concern that i have is the suggestion that this man who has served his country really since he was a young man and it listed in vietnam is not qualified to be the secretary of defense, i think is just not accurate and reflects certainly a different understanding of his background and his experience that i have. so i intend to vote for him. think he will be an excellent secretary of defense, and the help of we will confirm of. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it think the members of the committee. first, let me say up front that i think all of us deeply respect the senators service to his country in vietnam and service in this body. we know that there are always difficult decision
other americans. the pentagon never received the request from the state academy for security, and did not have the resources to get support on the ground in time to thwart the attackers. leon panetta is stepping down. this hearing is four hours and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. today the committee welcomes secretary of defense, leon panetta, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. to testify about the department of defense's response the deadly terrorist attack on the u.s. temporary mission facility in benghazi, libya, last year. and the findings of its internal review following that attack, including lessons learned from benghazi. we will be receiving testimony next tuesday morning on the impact of sequestration and/or a full-year continuing resolution on the department of defense witnesses. there will be department secretary of defense, the comp driller and the joint chiefs of staff. i hope today's hearing with inform the committee of any changes being made or proposed to the posture of u.s.
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to this article from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would provide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the
is confirmed and sworn in." close quote. so if anybody's under any misapprehension, i believe the pentagon press secretary has made that clear, we have a secretary of defense. he has not resigned, and he will continue to serve until such time as his successor is sworn in. and i would just say again to my friend, the senator from illinois, the assistant majority leader, we all know what a filibuster is. a filibuster is designed to kill a nomination or to defeat legislation, as the senator from tennessee said. and i would say this is equivalent to what happened back in 2005, and i have a letter here, mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to be made part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and i will refer to it. this is a letter signed by chris dodd, our former colleague who served on the foreign relations committee, and joe biden when he was the ranking member of the foreign relations committee back in 2005. it's entitled "dear democratic colleague, we write to urge you to oppose the cloture on the bolton nomination tonight. w
. the abuse and waste and the fraud is astoppedding. i think the pentagon needs to be paired down. we need the pentagon to look at their own priorities." we are pressed for time so i would, if i could, have the joint chiefs go down the line, quickly, if you can answer with yes or no, whether you agree with the general characterization that the senator made. that'd be great. [laughter] >> let me try it. it's a good question. it's a fair question. i don't -- i can't speak for senator hagel, but my interpretation of that is that it is along the lines of something that secretary gates used to say which was that we had accumulated over the decade post-9/11 when our budget was just kept going up over year, and i said this in lo gist ticks. when the budget goes up year in and year out, it's fair to say that when you had a management problem, all of our managers, they -- it was easy to reach for more money to solve your managing problem, whether it's a technical program or problem or something like that. it was noticeable as secretary in logistics that in some places that having had accumulated ov
it through the bureaucracies of the pentagon. america needs chuck as our secretary of defense to bring our troops home and keep our military the strongest in the world. sergeant hagel was an american hero. when so many americans were dodging the draft he volunteered to serve in vietnam. the draft board gave him the option to return to college but chuck refused. he said i think the best thing for me is to go in the army. it may not be the best thing for the army but i think that's the way to get all this straightened out. yfsz the oldest of four boys, he said, my sphawr passed away and i just was not coming together the way i should. there was a war going on in vietnam, i felt a sense of some responsibility so i said no, i think it's time to go. and so i volunteered for the draft. went in the army and celebrated my 21st birthday in white sands missile range. and chuck didn't serve in a safe bullet. when assigned to germany he volunteered for vietnam and saw the horrors of war as an infrant fantdry sergeant. he hand his brother tom are the only known american brothers to serve side by side i
reasons, the pentagon and the planners have made their own case to the president. and with the new resource problem we confronted in mali, look what it took to support french against al qaeda sub contractors. if we can't do that when in fact americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for . >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that we in effect need to be involved -- . >> the u.s. has been concerned about mali for at least eight nows. -- months only now there's a discussion about where we should do more. >> look, in the time of the great extra cater. we are -- that -- what is threaten, our foreign policy is not manic interventionism right now. that's not what we have to worry about here. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hand. i'm going ask you to identify yourself. keep your question short. let's go to [inaudible] of radio-- and then go to the woman right here in the black and hand the microphone to her. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] that syria is part
. the pentagon budget is expected to be cut to $47 billion over the past month. it is argued that these budget cuts would hurt military readiness. secretary ashton carter, and representatives of each branch of the military have testified. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. the committee meets this morning to consider the impact of sequestration and a full year of continuing resolution on the department of defense. we welcome the deputy secretary of defense, ashton carter, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey, who is accompanied by with the following friends. robert hale, chief of staff of the army, general ray odierno, vice chief of operations, mark ferguson, and general james amos, chief of staff of the air force general mark welch and chief of the national guard bureau, general frank grabs. i would like to stop by thanking all of you. please convey our thanks to the soldiers, airmen and marines at home and in harms way around the globe. they and their families deserve our utmost support. some members of congress an
washington post" that we needed to reduce dod as a reason to improve efficiency within the pentagon. that applies to all the other agencies as well. secondly, most of the concern about sequestration is about readiness. which is absolutely true. if you talk about the lawyers that work as defense contractors, they believe that they will have a field day. we have even had testimony last year that the legal household emanating from sequestration making up a lot of the savings. but beyond that, as senator ayotte and senator lindsey reference, there are a lot of dangerous places in the world. but we do is try to develop capabilities to deal with the unknowable contingencies of what could happen at a place like syria or iran or north korea. with less money, you can perform with fewer contingencies. this hurts us in the real world today. my final point is there are lots of options to deal with this. as was mentioned, the house passed bills twice last year to substitute sequestration savings for other more or other more targeted savings, so the same amount of money, and these domestic progra
on that "washington post" article that came out recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that we keep on about 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the planning process thus far, but can you supported plan that would scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? you know, we are looking at withdrawal of troops in afghanistan, and according to this article from about 8000 down to 1000 within a very short period of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends upon conditions on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood what the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. and i certainly, my advice as a commander on the ground or commander of central command, i would provide my advice based upon where i think the security forces are, a
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10